4 ms·
>It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon capture
by treis 4y ago
>It is generally accepted that wood burning produces more co2 than coal and natural gas
That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew.
- atlasunshrugged 4y agoI think they mean on a per unit basis, not total from all burnt wood vs. all burnt coal/lng
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThe factoid that gets thrown about is carbon emitted per energy released. Coal does better than wood on this super specific stat, but it's fossil CO2 we just dug out the ground, whereas wood from a managed forest used for other purposes is carbon negative if the alterantive is leaving it to rot to methane, because it's extracting CO2 from the air and then the managed forest is growing more trees that do the same, because we use wood for things. There's complications and details, but overall if everyone is doing what they should its okay and most of the hype is fossil fuel propaganda. Windmills upset the worms etc.
- pvaldes 4y ago> That doesn't seem possible unless we are discounting the carbon captured while the tree grew. Half of it The other half lies still safely under the surface. When a tree is chomped we take only half of the tree. This amount should be taken in mind in the model.